You're confusing yourself again, you are describing the judges in the role of appeal judges, they were not. The positive is that you have finally brought to our attention your own chink in the armour of the only trial that has taken place. These videos have been a mainstay of your argument, now they appear to be a little contentious.
Which is why some of us (quite a few to be fair) are discussing it - in a reasonable way, too. Enter Mr Hat
****ing media coverage !!!! Apparently I might not be fit to consent to basting - suffering succotash ! That's all folks
I've had 3 single malts and a couple of glasses of Merlot, if she tries it tonight I'm not sure I'll have full recollection in the morning.
Not been able to follow the thread as I'm at work right now but on radio 5 live Steve Bruce's comments are the second headline during the news bulletin - after the French presidential. Address to the public .
I always said that the jury saw the videos and would have seen them. I also said I hadn't seen them. They were the last piece of video evidence of the state she was in before or maybe whilst Evans shagged her. The jury may have watched them hundreds of times in the jury room I don't know, neither does anybody else outside the jury room. The reasons why I think he's guilty have little to do with what's on the films but more to do with the behaviour of MacDonald and Evans. If Evans and MacDonald agreed a code for a threesome then Evans lied to the jury about. Part of his defence was that she said yes when he got in the room. Why didn't MacDonald and Evans say she agreed to a threesome in the taxi? A reasonable assumption was that it wasn't discussed and therefore she didn't agree.
I asked a question about the taxi ride and its driver on the other thread; I have never seen anything mentioning evidence from the taxi driver, I asked if he delivered two mutes. It is not beyond reason to believe MacDonald would shy away from such conversations in an open taxi. It is unsafe to expect it and use the absence as a basis for guilt. I can't see how her saying yes when he got in the room should change anything other than the verdict.
It's just been announced, that Steve Bruce has been has asked to head up a review of the evidence relating to the Guilford Four.
You keep referring to these videos, but were they of any use, did the jury see them once, let alone hundreds of times; can you show me your reference in the transcript or other documents that makes this clear for you? At the end you say you don't know, but you start by being very positive in what you say and that's a tad confusing. I have often tried to take photos/video through glass (careful Chazz, nothing iffy! ) and the end results are usually very poor.
I'm just saying if "got a bird" was code MacDonald either agreed the threesome with her before they got in the taxi or during the taxi ride. If she didn't agree before the text was sent and it was a code then she hadn't consented to a threesome and her consent would be required in the room. If it was code Ched Evans lied to the court as well as to the porter to get what he wanted. I've given MacDonald the benefit of the doubt about the text as well as Evans. If it was code and he lied in the witness box he'll have committed perjury. If he is convicted for perjury and in the current climate, he might be going back inside for another 4 or 5 years. If there was evidence of consent to a threesome an hour before Evans arrived it would imply consent. In the absence of her saying no at the time the implication is that she consented. However, I don't think she did but if it was the case, Evans committed perjury at his trial. I admit I haven't seen all the evidence but from what I have seen I think he's guilty. I know other people disagree but some of them don't have a basic understanding of the facts presented in the judgment by the Appeal Court judges rejecting leave to appeal. Just as some people who think he's guilty don't. I'm not sure how serious you were about a spit roast, but MacDonald's non-participation in having an energetic threesome with a consenting woman made me think a bit more deeply about the case. its one of the reasons MacDonald is innocent in my view.
People have used the term "lynch mob" and "witch hunt" - but as a white man, Ched Evans could never have been the victim of either of these. He is simply facing the consequences of being a rapist.
A lynch mob is a mob who kill someone for committing an offence, without legal authority and a witch hunt is a hunt for witches. Neither have anything to do race, the Klu Klux Klan might have made up a large slice of lynchings, but witches were generally white women.
